In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

I wouldn't agree that Christians must believe in evolution, but I do believe that it wouldn't hurt.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

For what it's worth, I believe Charles Darwin studied for the Anglican priesthood, so I don't know if he ever became an atheist like many of the scientists after him. It's just interesting to note. Not that it proves the case either way, but it's something to think about.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in the scientific realm, which is more rigorous than the general "wishy-washy" meaning of the term. Think of it like a scatter plot model:

The red dots in this analogy represent all the fossils we have found. The blue line represents the theory of evolution. Evolution is an attempt to explain the apparent development we see in fossils.

Could it be wrong? Yes, sure. There could be a model that fits the data better than evolution. But based on every fact we have found, this model, this theory, of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the cold hard facts on hand.

I say that personally holding some misgivings about how evolution fits with the theology of the New Adam. I think it's problematic. However, data is data. I generally don't spend my time thinking about such things because there are no completely satisfactory answers. Christians have to be able to live with a certain amount of tension, because we can't know everything. We can only know what is revealed. We look through a glass darkly.

But the problem is the millions of transitional changes for a bat and a whale to have a common ancestor which is not in the fossil record. I think Christians have an advantage over a naturalist in that we can being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads. And the evidence to suggest how God brought life and all its complexities? I remain an agnostic on the findings attributed to theories such as Natural Selection and Random Mutation.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”